VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY – HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

NGUYỄN THỊ THU THỦY

MODALITY
IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE:
A COGNITIVE PERSPECTIVE
A Thesis Submitted in Full Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Major: English Linguistics
Code: 62 22 15 01
Supervisors: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Vo Dai Quang
Prof. Dr. Hoang Van Van

Hanoi, 2015


CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY

I, the undersigned, certify my authority of the dissertation report submitted entitled
“Modality in English and Vietnamese: A Cognitive Perspective” in full fulfillment of the
requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy.
Except where the reference is indicated, no other person’s work has been used without due
acknowledgements in the text of the dissertation.

Hanoi, 2015

Nguyen Thi Thu Thuy


material sacrifices as well as their understanding and unconditional supports. Their
encouragements and financial aids make all my endeavours worth doing.

ii


ABSTRACT
This study is an attempt to describe, analyse, compare/ contrast English and Vietnamese root
and epistemic modality as realized by modal verbs from Cognitive perspective, more
specifically in terms of force dynamic framework. The study is both descriptive and
contrastive in nature. The main aim of the research is to find similarities and differences
between English and Vietnamese root senses (including obligation, permission, ability and
volition) and epistemic senses (including necessity, probability and possibility) of modal verbs
from force dynamics.
The main data used in this study are taken from the two corpora: one in English with a total of
500,000 words in 91 social science texts and the other in Vietnamese with 500,000 words in
119 social science texts on the ground that (1) it is a rich resource for the researcher to find
examples of root and epistemic meanings of modal verbs in English and Vietnamese to serve
the purposes of the study and (2) it is the social science field that the researcher often deals
with. The texts are research articles published in English and Vietnamese journals respectively
in 7 disciplines: education, psychology, social science, economy, linguistics, culture and law,
from 2000 upwards. The data collected are then quantitatively and qualitatively analyzed in
order to find similarities and differences between English and Vietnamese root and epistemic
senses of modal verbs in terms of force dynamics in case that English is considered as a source
language and Vietnamese as a comparative one. With the help of the corpus-based analysis the TexSTAT-2 programme, frequency occurrences and KWIC (Key Word In Context)
concordance of various modals are discussed in order to show their relative importance in
expressing root and epistemic senses in the two languages in question. The findings of the
study show that both English and Vietnamese writers/ conceptualizers use the modality of
obligation, permission, ability, volition, necessity, probability, and possibility with different
force structures and barriers to express their different opinions or attitudes towards the

and possibility (in reasoning domain). Moreover, the findings of similarities and differences
between the two languages will be useful in language teaching and learning and translation
from English into Vietnamese and/or vice versa.

iv


TABLE OF CONTENT
Pages
CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY……………………………………… i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ………………………………………………

ii

ABSTRACT ………………………………………………………………...

iii

TABLE OF CONTENT ……………………………………………………

v

LIST OF TABLES ………………………………………………………...

ix

LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………………

x



7

1.6.2. Practical Significance of the Study ………………………………….

8

1.7. Structure of the Dissertation ………………………………………….

8

PART TWO: DEVELOPMENT ………………………………………….

9

Chapter I: Literature Review ……………………………………………..

9

1.1. Introduction …………………………………………………………….

9

1.2. Modality from the Traditional Point of View ………………………..

9

1.2.1. The Concept of Modality …………………………………………..

9


1.4.1.2. Cognitive Linguistics ……………………………………………….

22

1.4.1.3. Cognitive Semantics ………………………………………………..

22

1.4.1.4. Cognitive Grammar …………………………………………………

23

1.4.2. Major Principles of Cognitive Linguistics ………………………….

23

1.4.2.1. Language is all about meaning ……………………………………..

23

1.4.2.2. Grammar and Meaning are indissociable …………………………..

24

1.4.2.3. Language, Cognition and Culture …………………………………..

24

1.4.3. Force Dynamics and Modality ………………………………………

38

1.5.2.3. Ability ………………………………………………………………

40

1.5.2.4. Volition ……………………………………………………………..

40

1.5.3. Epistemic Modality ………………………………………………….

41

1.5.3.1. Necessity …………………………………………………………….

42

1.5.3.2. Probability …………………………………………………………..

42

1.5.3.3. Possibility ……………………………………………………………

44

1.6. Root and Epistemic Modality in Vietnamese ………………………… 45
1.6.1. Modality and Modal Verbs ………………………………………….

45

1.6.3.3. Possibility ……………………………………………………………

55

vi


1.7. Concluding Remarks …………………………………………………..

55

Chapter II: Research Methodology ………………………………………..

56

2.1. Introduction ……………………………………………………………

56

2.2. Research Questions …………………………………………………….

56

2.3. Methods of the study …………………………………………………..

56

2.4. Data collection …………………………………………………………

58


77

3.3.2. Meaning ……………………………………………………………….

78

3.4. Permission in English and Vietnamese ……………………………….

93

3.4.1. Form ………………………………………………………………….

93

3.4.2. Meaning ……………………………………………………………….

93

3.5. Ability in English and Vietnamese ……………………………………

100

3.5.1. Form …………………………………………………………………..

100

3.5.2. Meaning ……………………………………………………………….

100


115

4.3.1. Form ………………………………………………………………….

115

4.3.2. Meaning ………………………………………………………………

115

4.4. Probability in English and Vietnamese ………………………………

122

4.4.1. Form …………………………………………………………………..

122

vii


4.4.2. Meaning ……………………………………………………………….

122

4.5. Possibility in English and Vietnamese ………………………………..

131


3. Limitations of the Study ………………………………………………...

150

4. Suggestions for Further Study ………………………………………….

150

Articles related to the study ………………………………………………

I

References …………………………………………………………………..

II

Appendix A: Titles of English Texts in the English Corpus ……………..

XVII

Appendix B: Titles of Vietnamese Texts in the Vietnamese Corpus ……

XXV

Appendix C: String Matching of Modal Verbs in E and VNese Corpora

XXXIII

Appendix D: Tables ……………………………………………………….


104
110
114
121
130
137
LXVI
LXVII

Table 3.7 Distribution of Permission realized by Modal verbs in E&VNese Corpora
Table 3.8 Distribution of Ability realized by Modal verbs in E & VNese Corpora
Table 3.9 Distribution of Volition realized by Modal verbs in E & VNese Corpora
Table 4.1 Distribution of 3 Epistemic Senses in the E & VNese Corpora
Table 4.2 Distribution of Necessity realized by E &VNese Modal verbs
Table 4.3 Distribution of Probability Realized by E & VNese Modal verbs
Table 4.4 Distribution of Possibility Realized by E & VNese Modal verbs
Table 4.5 Distribution of English Modal Verbs in 7 Disciplines
Table 4.6 Distribution of Vietnamese Modal Verbs in 7 different disciplines

ix

LXV
LXV


LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1. Cultural thought patterns (Kaplan, 1966: 15)
Figure 1.2. Force Dynamic Entities (Talmy, 2000a: 414)
Figure 1.3. The basic steady-state force-dynamic patterns (Talmy 2000a: 415)
Figure 1.4. Compulsion (Johnson, 1987: 45)

Figure 4.6. Epistemic sẽ
Figure 4.7. Epistemic may (Pelyvás, 2006: 147)
Figure 4.8. Có thể for possibility

x

20
27
28
29
29
30
30
30
31
32
65
66
79
82
83
85
85
87
89
91
94
95
96
97

CS: Cognitive Semantics

Eng: English

FD: Force Dynamics

Fig: Figure

Mil: million

Lm: landmark

L1: First language

L2: Second language

No: Number

Occ: occurrences

OS: Objective Scene

KWIC: Key Word In Context

S: Subject

SoA: State of Affair

Txt: Text



ESoci: English social science

VSci: Vietnamese social science

xi


PART ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1. Rationale
Modality as expressed by modal verbs is an interesting, but complicated linguistic
phenomenon in both English and Vietnamese. Up to now, modality in the English language
has been studied by a number of researchers such as Langacker (1987, 1991ab, 2003, 2008,
2013),Talmy (1985, 1988, 2000a), Taylor (2002), Sweetser (1987, 1990), Johnson (1987),
Coates (1983, 1995), Mulder (2007), Pelyvás (1996, 2000, 2006, 2008), Mortelmans (2006,
2007), Halliday (1994), Declerck (2011), Linden (2012) and some others. Modality in the
Vietnamese language has been investigated by a number of Vietnamese researchers such as
C.X. Hạo (2004), N.T. Hùng (1994), Đ.H. Châu (1996), V.Đ. Quang (2008), N.T. Thìn (2003),
N.M. Thuyết & N.V. Hiệp (2004), D.Q. Ban & H. Dân (2000), N.T. Thuận (2003), P.T.T.
Thùy (2008), N.T. Hùng (2002, 2003), N.V. Hiệp (2007, 2009), B.M. Tóan & N.T. Lương
(2010), D.Q. Ban & H.V. Thung (2012), B.T. Ngoãn (2004), B.T. Đào (2014), etc. However,
there has been almost no research on discussing and analyzing root and epistemic senses of
modal verbs in English and Vietnamese from Cognitive perspective, more specifically in terms
of force dynamics. Therefore, this study is an attempt to describe, analyze, compare/ contrast
English and Vietnamese root modality (including obligation, permission, ability and volition)
and epistemic modality (including necessity, probability and possibility) as realised by modal
verbs from force dynamics (i.e., with regard to linguistic treatment of forces and barriers). The
study mainly follows the narrow definition of modality defined by Lock (1996: 193), i.e. “A
narrow definition of modality encompasses only modal auxiliaries and their uses …”. Modals
in this study mainly refer to Langacker’s study (2003: 3), i.e., modals “are grammaticalized

phenomenon, in their process of language learning and acquisition.
In order to make the task manageable in keeping up with the aim of the study, delimitation is
necessary. The study focuses mostly on a representative sample of modal verbs in English and
Vietnamese. The basic claim here is that these verbs can express both root modality and
epistemic modality which are considered as two main types of modality. The study mainly
follows Lock’s (1996) definition of modality, which is claimed that modality is mainly realised
by modal verbs and their uses. Some researchers such as Hermeren (1978) points out that only
articles, certain prepositions, conjunctions and pronouns rank higher than the modals in the
frequency table compiled from the million-word Brown University corpus. Moreover, works
done by Leech, Rayson & Wilson (2001), P.T.T.Thùy (2008), and N.T.T. Thủy (2012) show
that the main means of expressing modality in English is the set of modal auxiliary verbs.
Recently, much of the research on modality within a cognitive perspective has indeed focused
on modals, more specifically, on the English modals, for instance: Langacker (1991a), Talmy
(1988, 2000a, 2003); Johnson (1987); Sweetzer (1990); Taylor (2002); Pelyvás (2003, 2006),
Mortelmans (2007), Tyler (2008) and Mulder (2007); and this language bias has undoubtedly
shaped the typical intepretation of modality. Therefore, the main focus in this study lies on

-2-


describing and analysing root and epistemic modality as realized by the core English modal
verbs such as can, could, may, might, must, will, would, shall, should; and semi-modals such as
ought to, have to and need with examples mainly taken from the 500 000-word corpus
including 91 English social science texts. Have to is included in this set on the ground that (1)
it is ‘not true modal but no discussion of must or of the modals of obligation and necessity
would be complete without reference to it.’ (Coates, 1983: 52) and (2) it is the most common
form in both American English and British English according to Mairs’ (2006) investigation
into modal frequency. Though dare and had better are semi-modals, they are excluded from
this list since dare is ‘rare and apparently on the decline’ (Coates, 1983: 5) and had better is
‘actually declining’ (Leech 2003: 229). Note that in the English corpus of this study, there is

30-31), P.T.T.Thùy (2008), V.Đ.Quang (2008), B.T.Ngoãn (2002, 2003), B.T. Đào (2014) the
researcher can identify and categorize root and epistemic senses of modal verbs; and (3) the
reseacher has to synthesize and analyze different meanings of modal verbs.
In this study, the Cognitive Linguistics (CL) is considered as a theoretical framework since the
CL account “differs radically from traditional perspective by emphasizing that language is a
reflection of general cognitive processes, not a separated/ isolated system with its own systems
of rules” (Tyler, 2008: 459-60). In comparison with formal approaches, CL “stands out by
resisting the imposition of boundaries between language and other psychological phenomena.
… Rather than a distinct, self-contained entity (separate “module” or “mental faculty”),
language is viewed as an integral facet of cognition” (Langacker, 2013: 7-8). Cognitive
Linguistics is “an approach to language that is based on experience of the world and the way
we perceive and conceptualize it.” (Ungerer & Schmid, 1996: xxi). The foundational point of
CL ‘is simply that language is all about meaning.’ (Depraetere & Reed, 2006: 3)
Some Cognitive researchers such as Mortelmans (2007: 881) argue that ‘the cognitive
linguistic concepts of force dynamics, …. have proved to be highly powerful tools to discover
common cores in a wide variety of modal expression types’. Therefore, the researcher based
on the notions of force dynamics (opposition) proposed by Talmy (1988, 2000ab, 2003);
Langacker (1991ab, 2003, 2008, 2013); Sweetzer (1990); Johnson (1987); Taylor (2002);
Pelyvás (1996, 2003, 2006, 2008) to discuss and analyse the root and epistemic senses of
English and Vietnamese modal verbs.
The data submitted to the English and Vietnamese root and epistemic modality are mostly
taken from the two corpora: one in English and the other in Vietnamese. With the help of the
corpus-based analysis - the TexSTAT-2 programme, the study seeks to find the frequency and
KWIC (Key Word In Context) concordance of English and Vietnamese modal auxiliary verbs.
Moreover, string matching of each modal verb in English and Vietnamese social science texts
is illustrated in Appendix C, pp. XXXIII - LXIV of the study.
The main emphasis of the study is to explore the equivalence and non-equivalence of root and
epistemic senses of modal verbs between English and Vietnamese languages in terms of force
dynamic analyses. However, it cannot be said that all English and Vietnamese social science


epistemic modality as realized by modal verbs from force dynamics perspective with
reference to the frequency occurrences of modal verbs?

-5-


1.5. Methods of the Study
The study is aiming at comparing/ contrasting English and Vietnamese root and epistemic
senses of modal verbs in terms of force dynamics. Therefore, the principal method applied for
the study is the contrastive analysis (CA), which is defined by Richards et al. (1992: 83) as ‘the
comparison of the linguistic system of two languages’. During the comparison and contrast,
English is considered as the source language and Vietnamese as a language of reference.
Therefore, in this study, it is assumed that the notions of force dynamics are first used to
describe and analyse root and epistemic modality realized by English modals and then they
will be adapted to deal with those of the Vietnamese language.
The study was also conducted with the help of corpus-aided analysis of English and
Vietnamese social science texts in order to find out the frequency and KWIC (key word in
context) concordance of a certain modal verb. The analysis of the study is undertaken by
blending the quantitative research approach with the more qualitative research approach. The
quantitative approach gives a statistical overview of large amounts of the texts in question more precisely, large numbers of tokens of the English and Vietnamese modal verbs in the
authentic social science texts in the two corpora (a 500 000 - word corpus in English and a
500000 - word corpus in Vietnamese), whereas the qualitative one refers to the close, detailed
examination of particular stretches of the modal verbs in terms of forces and barriers. It may be
possible to better understand the processes at play in the texts and to gain access to nonobvious meanings of the key words.
The study is an attempt to contribute to the application of the Cognitive linguistics as a
theoretical background to compare/ contrast the two languages: English and Vietnamese in
terms of modality expressed in authentic social science texts on the ground that: (1) Language
is claimed to be best studied and described with reference to its cognitive, experiential and
social contexts. (Kemmer, 2000); (2) Cognitive linguistics ‘highlights recurrent, meaningful
linguistic patterns and organising principles found at all “levels” of language’ (Tyler 2008:

other prosodic features. However, they will be dealt with or touched when necessary.
1.6. Contribution of the Study
1.6.1. Theoretical Significance of the Study
The study hopes to make a contribution to
The development of the Cognitive perspective to describe and analyze an interesting, but
complicated language phenomenon, i.e. modality in general, and modal verbs in particular, in
two languages: English and Vietnamese;
The development of the corpus-aided approach to find out the frequency and collocations
of modal verbs appearingin English and Vietnamese social science texts;
The development of the contrastive and comparative analysis of English and Vietnamese
modality from Cognitive perspective, more specifically, in term of force dynamics.

-7-


1.6.2. Practical Significance of the Study
The study wishes:
to provide a systematic description and analysis of modals in English and Vietnamese in
terms of force dynamics;
to assist writers who are not native speakers but who are seeking to publish their research
papers in English journals;
to discover what lies behind the differences in modality between English and Vietnamese
in order to raise awareness as well as interest in learning and teaching foreign languages in a
way that one should take the social and cultural differences between one’s mother tongue and
his/ her target language into consideration.
1.7. Structure of the Dissertation: Apart from the introduction and conclusion, the study
consists of 4 chapters:
Chapter I first presents a brief discussion of the concept of modality from traditional point of
view. Then it investigates the two main types of modality: root and epistemic modality. Next,
an overview of Cognitive linguistics is presented, which serves as a theoretical background.

ones. This bias can be found both in language-specific accounts (e.g. Palmer 1990, Coates
1983, Sweetser 1990, Johnson 1987, Taylor 2002, Talmy 2000a, Langacker 1991b, 1999,
Huddleston 1984, Downing & Locke 1992) and in cross-linguistic studies (e.g. Palmer 1986,
Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca 1994), although lately some linguists have taken a broader
perspective, like Nuyts (2001) on epistemic modality, and Linden (2012) on modal adjectives.
This chapter begins with describing and analysing the concept of modality, types and
meanings of modality from traditional point of view. It is due to the fact that the semantic
category of modality is not as easily defined as tense or aspect (Bybee, Perkins & Pagluica
1994: 176) and “modality and its types can be defined and named in various ways,” and that
“there is no one correct way” (Van der Auvera and Plungian, 1998, cited in Mortemans, 2007:
869). Then it will present an overview of the Cognitive perspective. And lastly, it provides
force dynamic frameworks of root and epistemic senses of modal verbs in English and
Vietnamese.
1.2. Modality from the Traditional Point of View
1.2.1. The Concept of Modality
Traditionally, the concept of modality and the modal concepts of possibility, probability and
necessity, according to Hoye (1997), go back to Aristotle and classical Greek philosophy.
These notions seem to derive from the fact that human beings often categorize their attitudes
and experiences in terms of the ways things might or must be or might have been, other than
they actually are or were. Therefore, this part gives a summary of some authors’ point of views
of modality such as Jesperson (1949), von Wright (1951), Rescher (1968), Bybee (1985),
McCarthy (1994), Lyons (1977) and Palmer (1986).

-9-


According to Jesperson (1949, cited in N. Hòa, 2004: 175), modality is defined as ‘an
interesting issue, which can be divided into two kinds: the first contains an element of will,
which corresponds to deontic modality and the second contains no element of will, i.e.
epistemic modality’. Although Jesperson’s proposals of two types are of great importance,



terms of the speaker’s belief or commitment to the truth of a proposition, directives and
commissives correspond very largely to deontic modality. Commissives are speaker-oriented
whereas directives are hearer-oriented. Declaratives come close to assertives and therefore
they are connected to epistemic modality. Expressives may belong to epistemic modality.
Modality, in Bybee’s point of view (1985), in a broad sense is what the speaker is doing with
the whole proposition whereas modality in Pamper’s (1986) view point is defined as semantic
information associated with the speaker’s attitude or opinion about what s/he says. (Cited in N.
Hòa, 2004).
McCarthy (1994: 94) defines “modality as a kind of thought often consisting of the closed
class of modal verbs (must, can, will, may, etc.) and being treated as part of grammar of
English, but a large number of lexical words (nouns, adjectives, verbs, and adverbs) carry the
same or similar meanings to the modal verbs”.
Lyons (1977) recognizes two kinds of modality using von Wright’s terms: Epistemic modality
and deontic modality. While the term ‘epistemic’ coming from a Greek word meaning
“knowledge” is concerned with matters of knowledge, belief or opinion rather than fact, the
term ‘deontic’ coming from a Greek word relating to the imposition of obligations is
concerned with the necessity or possibility of acts performed by morally responsible agents.
Modality is claimed to express subjectivity of the speaker (Lyons, 1977; Palmer, 1986).
However, Palmer (1986) argues that it is not possible to decide whether modals are subjective
or not, as in ‘You must leave at once’. This sentence can indicate that it is the speaker’s
insistence or general (objective) necessity for leaving, or it is indeterminate between the two
readings. It is in principle not possible to justify the one interpretation rather than the other.
Therefore, it needs a specific context to clarify its meaning. ‘You must leave at once’ could be
construed in an alternative analysis, i.e., in terms of force dynamics from Cognitive
perspective.
The definition of modality applied in this study is used most widely, agreeing with the view of
Lyons (1977: 452), i.e. modality is defined as “the speaker’s opinion or attitude toward the
proposition that sentence expresses or the situation that the proposition describes.’ Moreover,

In this section, some main types of modality such as epistemic modality vs. deontic modality;
root modality vs. epistemic modality; agent-oriented modality vs. speaker-oriented modality;
extrinsic modality vs. intrinsic modality will be discussed with reference to some researchers
including Bybee & Fleischman (1995), N.V. Hiệp (2009), Palmer (1986, 1990), Nuyts (2001,
2006), Coates (1983), Bybee et al. (1994), Biber et al. (1999), Perkins (1980, 1983),
Huddleston (1980), Linden (2012), Declerck (2011), Johnson (1987), Talmy (1988, 2000ab),
Sweetser (1990), Taylor (2002), and Langacker (1990, 1991ab, 1999, 2003).

- 12 -


1.2.2.1. Agent-oriented Modality vs. Speaker-oriented Modality
Agent-oriented modality applies to ‘all modalities in which conditions are predicated on an
agent (obligation, desire, ability, permission and root possibility)’ (Bybee & Fleischman, 1995:
5) while speaker-oriented modality applies to a whole proposition and communicates the
speaker's stance concerning its truth (Palmer, 1990). Agent-oriented modality can be expressed
by lexical or grammatical morphemes. Some of the most semantically specific notions in this
set include necessity, ability, desire and obligation as in [1.1]:
[1.1] All students must obtain the consent of the Dean of the falculty concerned before
entering for exam (Root – obligation) (Coates 1983: 35)
While ‘agent-oriented modality reports the existence of internal and external conditions on an
agent’ (Bybee et al. 1994: 179), speaker-oriented modalities allow the speaker to impose such
conditions on the addressee. (ibid.) The grammatical terms for speaker-oriented modality may
encompass imperative (the form used to issue a direct command), prohibitive (a negative
command), optative (the wish or hope of the speaker in a main clause), hortative (the speaker
is encouraging someone to action), admonitive (the speaker is issuing a warning) and
permissive (the speaker is granting permission) (ibid.). Speaker-oriented modality is meant to
include directives as well as utterances in which the speaker grants the addressee permission as
in [1.2]
[1.2] You can start the revels now. (Root – ability) (Coates 1983: 88)